Richard Cordray spoke at the Brookings Institution today, on his first day as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He laid out the mission of the agency as he sees it, and how it will use its expanded authorities over non-bank financial institutions.

Cordray started by bearing witness to financial predators who have destroyed the lives of many Americans. “I have seen senior citizens defrauded of their savings,” Cordray said. “And I have seen families bankrupted by complex mortgages with spiraling interest costs they did not understand and could not afford.” He highlighted some of the testimony that the agency has already received from consumers who have been ripped off by financial institutions, through call centers and complaint hotlines set up prior to his appointment. Cordray noted that thousands have called in to complain, and this story sounds eerily representative:

We also heard from Rebecca in North Carolina. She told us she missed a mortgage payment nine months after her husband lost his job. In the two years since, her mortgage servicer has increased her monthly payments even though she believed that a trial modification was supposed to reduce them. She said she was charged for inspections and appraisals she did not ask for and that have never occurred, leading to increased debts and repeated threats of foreclosure. Rebecca says she has been frantically complying with these demands because she is so afraid of losing her home.

The CFPB has worked to bring clarity to mortgage, student loan and credit card statements with their “Know Before You Owe” program. But with the appointment of Cordray, now they get the full regulatory authorities of the agency. Here’s Cordray’s pitch on that:

Today, we are launching the Bureau’s program for supervising nonbanks. We will begin dealing face-to-face with payday lenders, mortgage servicers, mortgage originators, private student lenders, and other firms that often compete with banks but have largely escaped any meaningful federal oversight.

These are important markets. Many provide valuable services to customers who lack access to other forms of credit. And they are big markets. Nearly 20 million American households use payday lenders, and pay roughly $7.4 billion in fees every year. Many subprime loans during the housing bubble were made by nonbank mortgage brokers. Since most of these businesses are not used to any federal oversight, our new supervision program may be a challenge for them. But we must establish clear standards of conduct so that all financial providers play by the rules.

In a separate fact sheet, the CFPB lays out their non-bank financial institution regulatory plan, the nation’s first. They plan to oversee mortgage lenders and servicers, payday lenders, consumer credit reporting agencies and debt collectors. Other services like debt relief agencies, money remitters and prepaid card issuers could come under their purview as well, under a rulemaking process that CFPB will soon initiate. They can examine these businesses (here’s the examiner field guide), and they can request documents and reports from them as well. And CFPB has standing agreements to work with state consumer protection regulators on all of these businesses. Like other federal regulators, CFPB can seek consent agreements with businesses out of compliance, as well as take appropriate legal action.

Because the agency had a year to ramp up, they are pretty well-staffed with examiners to overlook these businesses, with four field offices across the country.

There’s more on this at the New York Times. Overall, this is a pretty solid agenda, the very one that Republicans spent months trying to block through their nullification strategy. Obviously, we’ll have to wait and see how aggressive Cordray is against servicers and other scam artists before pronouncing this a success.

This is a falsehood propagated by right-wing think tanks like Cato. It’s just not true. The section in question in Dodd-Frank merely refers back to the advise and consent power of the Senate. It’s boilerplate. Recess appointments are legitimate appointments.

Eh, if so then you’re still stuck trying to explain how Obama figures that Congress is in recess.

Obama says the GOP machinations to keep Congress technically in session is a “stupid gimmick” yet he has no basis on which to make his case other than his own opinion and an old report. In fact his administration is citing a 1905 Senate Judiciary Report that would make the new definition of “recess” applicable to weekends as well.

In fact the Constitutional Professor/President could have made the Cordray appointment on January 3rd when the senate actually WAS in recess.

But hey, I’m an equal opportunity hater of politicians. Hopefully I can visit FDL in the future when there is a GOP President conducting his appointing in a similar fashion and find you supporting it.

“According to reports from the Congressional Research Service, during their time in office President Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments, President George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments, President Bill Clinton made 140 recess appointments, and George W. Bush made 171. Obama’s first term has seen a paltry 28. In this context, Obama’s move seems less like a power grab and more like the proverbial 98-pound weakling taking a second to wipe the sand out of his eyes. ”

I’m not sure I understand the purview of the new CFPB. I thought this bureau also examined complaints against banks, which is why the banks had been so hysterically opposed to it. A credit card company is in many cases a banking institution.

My other question is how did this happen so effortlessly? Republicans have focused on blocking this recess appt for about a year now. Why all of a sudden did their guard drop? The lack of pushback suggests some kind of cooperation, or maybe a deal?

I’m thrilled Obama finally made a move –after all, recess appts are hardly controversial anymore — but I’m in the dark about events that made this happen. Anyone with insider info?

Are you still stuck in that old, dead, dusty paradigm that there’s some perceivable difference between so-called “Democrats” and putative “Republicans,” Rafe?

I thought surely by 2012 (happy new year!), you’d have moved on into the new millenium, which recognizes that both parties work for the 1% and do their bidding. Not really gonna shake up much if, for ex, Mitt Romney is next POTUS, just as it hasn’t made one damn bit of difference that Obama took the baton from GW Bush.

The lack of pushback suggests some kind of cooperation, or maybe a deal?

You ask good questions, for which I have no answers. My “take” (which is utterly worthless) is: it’s an election season, so the 1% is willng to “act” like there’s some sort of “difference” between so-called “Democrats” and putative “Republicans” in order to fool the 99% into thinking that their vote “matters.”

So, we are going after everything but the big banks…how bipartisan of the WH at a time when the vultures collect campaign crumbs from their Wall Street masters.

Let’s shut down the local pawn shop, cut off the owner’s fingers, and send everyone in the family to jail. And don’t forget those guys that cash the minimum wage checks, because everyone MUST have a major bank checking account with a $500 minimum balance (or else pay two hours of wages in fees monthly).

fwdpost, that’s what I’m reading too. So is this just more bo bs. Did it go something like this:

bo says I’m gonna appease some of those retarded fucking liberals so they’ll show up and vote for me. bo calls big banks. Big banks tell bo don’t fuck with us. bo agrees. bo appoints Cordray and tells him what he can do and his limitations. Cordray accepts.

There. bo looks tough to some weak-minded libs. obamabots are overjoyed. rethugs are hopping mad knowing that any way they go at this could work in bo’s favor.
Next!

I don’t understand something. If the Senate says that it is not in recess, but the president says they are, who arbitrates that? And if the President can unilaterally determine when the Senate is in recess and when it is not, could he consider it to be in recess when the close up shop in the afternoon – making appointments in the evening?

read below:
President Obama Has Made Far Fewer Recess Appointments Than Any Recent President | Despite the inevitable conservative complaints that President Obama is engaged in some kind of massive overreach by recess appointing Richard Cordray as the nation’s chief consumer financial protection watchdog, the truth is that Obama has used his recess appointment power very sparingly. After today’s appointment, President Obama will have made a total of 29 recess appointments. By comparison, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments; Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments; George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments; and Ronald Reagan made 243. When you divide these numbers by the number of years each man spent in the White House, it reveals that Obama is far and away the least likely president to invoke this power:

Obama never does anything that is BOLD!!! He does what he is TOLD

Cordray is on a mission to ignore the CLOWNS who tank the USA Economy! and U OLDGOLD think we all should jump for JOY!!!

Obama’s real father Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointsments, Obama has only made 29?

Oldgold it is really sad watching OBAMA lose control of the USA, yes I think USA politics is about to go way outside of the BOX, I mean way out side of the BOX

Oldgold the days of tolerating MORONIC AMERICA are coming to an END!!!

Words don’t mean crap, let us watch and view Cordray ACTIONS!!!

We must never forget, OBAMA used a lot of great words during 2008, however at the end of day all us progressives got was 4 more years of BUSH!

There also appears to be some “issue” with when & how Obama chose to make this appointment. I won’t wait with baited breath to see if somehow the Cordray “appointment” gets deep sixed somehow.

Nice to hear the news. Let’s see what, if anything, happens. As I said, if I’m proven wrong, and Cordray *really* does something worthwhile for the 99%, no one will be happier than me to be proven completely wrong.

I generally don’t get in the middle of this sort of thing but in defense of jedi, the appointment may be more show than substance. This would be typical bo. Ya know, he gave us healthcare but took money from medicare, mandated healthcare, etc. It’s when you scratch the surface then see what’s really going on.

Obama’s list included all the major banks and bailout recipients, plus a smattering of high-dollar defense lawyers from firms like WilmerHale and Skadden Arps who make their money representing those same banks. McCain’s list included exactly the same banks and a similar list of law firms, the minor difference being that it was Gibson Dunn instead of WilmerHale, etc.

Justice Department Officials are proposing to strengthen troops’ voting rights, re-employment rights, and housing and lending protections, under a package of legislative proposals sent to Congress Sept. 20.
Among other things, Justice Officials are requesting a doubling of civil penalties for anyone violating troops’ rights under the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act. The government would be able to assess a penalty of up to $110,000 for a first violation, and up to $220,000 for any subsequent violation.
Finally, Justice officials want the authority to investigate and bring suit to stop a pattern or practice of violations of service members’ rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Their proposals would also allow the federal government to be named as a plaintiff in all suits filed by the department, not just suits filed against state employers.

Heh, Obama does one thing that’s okay, and you’re all over it. Guess that makes sense though, since he’s done so little that’s okay one would have to make a big deal out of it when he does.

Don’t forget though there’s an election next year. In a democracy, citizens have the RIGHT to vote, but with that right comes RESPONSIBILITY. Whenever citizens vote for a candidate, they are approving whatever it is they’ve done. They (you) might not agree with it, but by voting for the person you’re basically saying “I might not agree with X, but I can live with X.”

Which means one owns X and approves of X even if they may disagree with X. How many millions of Americans next year will approve of detaining American citizens, without trial, the right to a lawyer, or ever being charged with a crime? Will you be one? If so, wear it proud. Be forever prideful of the fact that with your vote, you gave permission, even if tacitly, of not only detaining American citizens, but also assassinating them.

The folks that do that may call themselves Democrats, but they’re no more Democrats in the traditional sense than I am a young, attractive woman. I don’t even see how one can even call themselves an American by enabling these policies with their votes.

This President should’ve recess appointed Warren. Warren was a better choice. But yes, this appointment is better than no appointment. And while I remain upset that he didn’t do this for Warren, I do applaud him for at least doing it for someone. He deserves some credit for this, especially since he’s likely going to take a little heat for it due to the manner he did it.

Good for him.

IMO this and unilaterally increasing the CAFE standards are the best two things he’s done. However, given our circumstances, that’s actually a pretty sad statement because in the scheme of our problems, these are small fish.

You can disagree all you want to, but if a candidate says he will rape schoolchildren while in office, and you vote for him anyway, you ARE giving your approval for the rape of school children, even if you don’t agree with it. Because you are putting him in office where he can do exactly what he said he would do. That’s called enabling.

Disagree all you want to till the end of time. When one votes for a candidate that says he will assassinate American citizens and signed legislation that says he can detain them forever, you are approving those acts just if you had voted for the child rapist after knowing he was a child rapist.

Some time ago I wondered “How far right can Obama and the Democrats go before those supporting them would leave?” It seems they can go all the way to assassinating American citizens and ending habeas corpus and STILL those like you support them.

You, and everyone like you, are responsible for that whether you like or not. If I sound angry I am. I would take up armed conflict and give my life over things like habeas corpus and due process. It’s a shame it would seem to be that it would likely be against American citizens, even American citizens that call themselves Democrats.

I can’t help but wonder if they would even vote for a child rapist as long as he had a D after his name. And the fact I have to wonder that is some fucked up shit.

You will note that the one item he emphasized today, the issue surrounding the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act, I did respond to. And, as has been the case in the past, found it to be less than fully accurate.

That said, I am critical of Obama’s response to the foreclosure crisis. In particular, I have expressed my displeasure with HAMP and have called for Giethner to be fired, in part, for his administration of it.

~
simple fact – the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) has no authority over federally chartered banks because that is what the banks want and because that is what both sides of capitol hill made happen

question: who f*cked America? was in pay day lenders? was it currency exchanges? was it the mortgage brokers who collateralized debt into MBS? (they admitedly are involved in loan origination- but, as referred to above, it was not poor folks taking out mortgages that led to the $13-16 trillion bailout of the big banks, and don’t let bigoted ideologues who are covering for the big banks try to convince you that it was – it was the creators and sellers of collateralized debt that caused the new depression)

Cordry has power…but only over the smallest fish in the FIRE pond – not the banks – and both Dems and Repubs from the lowest level congressperson to the president will not change that – because they have been told that that ‘shall not’ by their bosses

the federal banking regulators are: Comptroller of Currency, FDIC and to a degree the SEC (that’s because security sellers demanded of the pawns on capitol hill to be allowed to change from investment houses to banks so they could get all those sweet taxpayer bailouts (see GE and Goldman Sachs) – each of which fall under the executive branch (i.e. Obama) and each of which are stacked to the gills with banking industry hacks…as in (not making this up) former Goldman Sachs employees, etc.

For an educative primer on how these so called law enforcers are doing their job (of protecting the wealth of greedy assholes) please search in your favorite search engine for the brilliant and entertaining judicial ruling by Federal Judge Jed Rakoff in the SEC vs Citibank (southern district NY) case late last year…judge sez it best when he recognized that (paraphrasing here) the combined interests of the SEC and Citibank in settling that case may actually not be in the intrests of the broader public (read taxpayers and consumers)…!

It’s not Greenwald that I find persuasive. It’s his arguments. I admire a good analysis. Lesser-evilism is not a good analysis, and it has brought us to a very bad place because good people like you have been settling for it for decades. I challenge you to cite any aspect of that piece that is “disingenuous.” If “too many words” is your complaint, then that is about your own limitations, not the limitations of Greenwald or his honest analysis of a complex situation.

Next year there will be folks names on the ballot that do not condone assassinating American citizens with no due process and ending habeas corpus. And even if there weren’t, every voter has the right to write in someone that wouldn’t nuke China in the other scenario.

I know it sucks, and it’s why I’m so angry at Obama and the Democrats. They’ve put us voters in an awful situation. But just because it sucks doesn’t excuse us from responsibility. No voter is ever forced to vote for a candidate that says he will nuke China, or rape school children, or assassinate American citizens with no due process. If they do so, it will be out of CHOICE.